On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 04:53:02PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 27-06-19 07:36:50, Dave Hansen wrote: > [...] > > For MADV_COLD, if we defined it like this, I think we could use it for > > both purposes (demotion and LRU movement): > > > > Pages in the specified regions will be treated as less-recently- > > accessed compared to pages in the system with similar access > > frequencies. In contrast to MADV_DONTNEED, the contents of the > > you meant s@MADV_DONTNEED@MADV_FREE@ I suppose Right, MADV_FREE is more proper because it's aging related. > > > region are preserved. > > > > It would be nice not to talk about reclaim at all since we're not > > promising reclaim per se. Your suggestion doesn't expose any implementation detail and could meet your needs later. I'm okay. I will change it if others are not against of it. Thanks, Dave.
